BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 9th December 2016
PRESENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.175/2013
(Admitted on 21.06.2013)
Mr. R.V.S.R.S. Prasad,
Aged 51 years,
S/o R Lakshminarayana,
Residing at 303, K S N Adiga,
Smaraka Bhavana, Kadri,
Mangalore 575 003.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri ANN)
VERSUS
- M/s. Reliance Digital Retail,
Citi Center, K.S.Rao Road,
Mangalore 575 001 D.K.
- Maple
Apple Authorised Service provider,
Saldanha Providence,
Balmatta Road,
Mangalore 575 001 DK.
- Apple India (P) Ltd.,
19, Floor, Concorde Tower C,
UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road,
Bangalore 560001.
......OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Part No.1: Sri. BGS)
(Opposite Part No.2: Ex parte)
(Advocate for the Opposite Part No.3: Sri. KPVR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant contends he purchased an Apple Macbook Pro laptop for personal use from opposite party No.1 on 22.6.2012 which had a warranty card. The battery of the lap top as per the assurance and representation of opposite parties should be at least for 5 to 7 hrs but even after fully charged battery was not giving backup for even 2 hrs. When complainant approached authorized service provider the opposite party No.2 the complainant was informed they will replace the battery if he obtains the Annual Maintenance Contract by paying Rs.15,000/. There were numerous exchanges of email and phone conversations with the men of opposite party No.1. Complainant took the laptop as adviced to opposite party No.2 on 11.4.2013 and he confirmed the issue with the batter requiring replacement. When the complainant was informed on 13.4.2013 and 14.4.2013 for the weekend they would be closed they were requested by complainant to return positively on 12th evening but opposite party No.2 called complainant and informed that for replacement of battery he should pay around Rs.15,000/ for the Apple protection plan which would have actually become due only on 21.06.2013. The complainant took back the lap top and again took it to opposite party No.2 on 23.4.2013 and he was again called and informed to take back by opposite party No.2 on 24.4.2013 with the instruction to use it for some time. After the all assertion of on 20.6.2013 the complainant in good faith paid Rs.15,230/ towards Apple Care Protection Plan certificate. However the battery was not replaced. Complainant further contends that against promise of risk cover and also air protection, opposite party No.3 has not issued cover certificate for air protection plan. Hence seeks the relief claimed against opposite parties.
II. Opposite party No. 1 in the written version admitted the sale of the material to complainant as mentioned but refused knowledge about the Annual Maintenance Contract forRs.15,000/ insisted upon complainant. They admit the sale of the product to complainant of the lap top. He is only a retail seller. It is opposite party No.2 and No.3 who has to answer the warranty card etc., hence seeks dismissal.
2. Opposite party No.3 in the written version while admitting the sale of the product to complainant mentions under clause No.6 of terms and conditions of replacement mentioned beyond the service reports to the complaint clearly stated that all the effort to be made to replace the product within 5 days. The time frame quoted for replacement of the battery is in the present time within the time specified in the terms and conditions available in the complaint. Opposite party No.2 & No.3 cannot be penalized for not making an exception for a particular customer. When opposite party repeatedly contacted complainant Macbook was taken back by the complainant was not cooperative and adopted a confrontational attitude instead of working towards a workable solution. The present complaint is filed with a cause and misrepresentation of facts. Opposite party had never denied of replacement or repair of the macbook battery. Hence seeks dismissal.
3. In support of the above complainant Mr. R.V.S.R.S. Prasad filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C14 detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Deepak Jain (RW1) Authorized Signatory also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Affirmative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant had purchased Macbook of opposite party No.3s brand and opposite party No.2 is the service centre to whom complainant took the product for repairs are undisputed. Hence there is consumer and service provider relationship is established. There is defect in the battery of the product purchased by complainant but it was not replaced by opposite party No.2 on behalf of opposite party No.3 despite request/demands correspondence is also admitted by both the parties. Hence there is live dispute between the parties as contemplated under the C P Act. Hence we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): With all the lengthy pleadings on either side suffice to mention opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 did admit an issue with the battery in respect of the mac book lap top sold to complainant by opposite party No.1 which is admittedly of manufacture/brand of opposite party No.3. When complainant took the product to opposite party No.2 as per the instruction of opposite party No.3 s men over e-mail/telephonic conversations opposite party No.2 by keeping the product for a day did confirm the issue about battery requiring replacement.
2. Ex.C5 is MAPLE DTI Delivery Report dated 11.4.2013 and Machine Collection Date and Time was 12.4.2013. 3 columns in the action taken columns of Ex.C5 the following is written in column pertaining to quoted table:
Problem Desc | Problem Found | Action taken |
BATTERY BACKUP ISSUE. NEED TO CHECK CAMERA SETTINGS. GETTING INVERTED.CASE NUM(SPOKEN TO TOLL FREE NUM) 433420402 BACKUP-NEEDED | CHECKED AND FOUND BATTERY BACK UP ISSUE | CHECKED AND FOUND BATTERY BACK UP ISSUE, CHECKED WITH KNOWN GOOD OSX AND HARD DISK NO GO, RUN THE AST, CLEAR THE SMC PRAM NO GO, CHAT WITH THE TSPS AGAINST CASE#433813139. UPDATED SAME TO THE CUSTOMER IT WILL TAKE 3.4 WIRJUBG DAYS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, BUT CUSTOMER NOT READY TO KEEP THE MACHINE IN SERVICE CENTRE. HENCE RETURNING BACK THE MACHINE TO THE CUSTOMER |
3. On the reverse of Ex.C5 at the terms and condition No.6 reads thus:
Maple DTI shall make all efforts to ensure that the product is repaired within 5 working days from the receipt of faulty product. At times however, due to non-availability/shortage of critical spare parts or complicated fault, the repair turnaround time may take longer than the indicated while accepting the machine for repair. Maple DTI will not be responsible for any loos/losses whatsoever in the event of the delay in repair for such aforementioned reason.
- In the respect of the period of 5 days to be kept with opposite party No.2 for replacement of battery the complainants specific case is as admitted he can operate the laptop with the direct power supply and as the weekend was ahead he took back the laptop promising to return once the battery is received by opposite party No.2 as promised from Bangalore. But evidently on the grounds that complainant took back the laptop opposite party No.2 did not neither got the replacement of battery nor provided replace battery to the laptop of the complainant. As can be seen from clause 6 quoted above of Ex.C5 we are of the view that this condition cannot be read as mandatory required in all cases when a product like the laptop macbook was brought to opposite party No.2 especially of the present nature on hand what is required in the case of complainants macbook is only a replacement of battery which even according to opposite party No.2 required replacement. Hence the action/inaction on the opposite party No.2 not to replace the battery of the macbook when it was found by opposite party No.2 as defective even as noted at Ex.C5 as quoted above in our view amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and No.3.
The complainant further contends on payment of the service contract opposite party No.2 & No.3 sent Apple Care Protection certificate dated 20.6.2013 covering up to 20.6.2015. However in the said certificate the opposite party had mentioned the coverage for laptop macbook only without mention as to the airport device which was a part of the warranty cover as per opposite parties representation referred earlier.
Ex.C11 is Apple Care Protection Plan certificate of 20th June 2013 the printout of the service and support from the people of macbook mentioned about mac computer as well as time airport device and apple care protection plan Ex.C12 issued to complainant on 20.6.2013 the description as Apple Care Protection Plan for Macbook/MacBook Air/13 MacBook Pro cover for this Rs.15,230/. But as pointed out for complainant infact the complainant had taken a specific stand that the actions of opposite party No.2 in refusing to give replacement of the battery was an arm twisting action to compel complainant in the month of April 13 itself to caugh off the maintenance contract worth Rs.15,230/ from complainant which even though was due as on 20th June 2013 only. On one pretext or the other opposite party No.2 and the men of opposite party No.3 as evident from the other documents namely the printout of the email correspondence indicate prolonging of giving replacement of battery to complainant within the warranty period. Infact the action on the part of complainant with all these arm twisting on by opposite party No.2 and on behalf of opposite party No.3 in paying the Annual Maintenance Contract of rs.15,230/ on 20.6.2013indicates complainant had no hope with these opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3. Ex.C11 does not mention about macbook care protection even Ex.C13 the apple care protection certificate issued to complainant on 20.6.2013 also does not mention the cover for airport device protection as such the claim made even in respect of this by the complaint shall be allowed. As per Ex.C12 the description as to for the purpose of which the cover is provided is mentioned as:
Sr | Item | Description | Qty | UOM | Basic Rent | Amount | Serial No |
1 | MD015FE/A | AppleCare Protection Plan for MacBook/MacBook Air/13” MacBookPro | 1.00 | Nos | 13,554.65 | 13,554.65 | SC6TJ912QDG57 |
In the circumstance, we are of the opinion complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 and they shall be directed to replace the defective battery with the new defect free battery to complainants Apple Macbook laptop, compensation Rs. 25,000/ against loss and also to issue fresh Apple Care certificate and another compensation of Rs.5,000/ towards pain and sufferings. Opposite party shall also pay the cost of the complaint fixed at Rs.5,000/. Hence we answer point No.2 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 are directed to replace the defective battery with the new defect free battery to complainants Apple Macbook laptop and to pay Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) towards compensation of against loss and also to issue fresh Apple Care certificate and another compensation of Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only) towards pain and sufferings. Opposite party shall also pay the cost of the complaint fixed at Rs.5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only). Payment shall pay within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on failure to pay within 30 days shall carry interest at 9% from the date of the complaint on Rs.30,000/ above till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 9th December 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. R.V.S.R.S. Prasad
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 22.06.2012 : Copy of Invoice
Ex.C2: : Copy of warranty card
Ex.C3: 21.04.2013 : Copy of email containing 2 pages
Ex.C4: 11.04.2013 : Copy of email (single page)
Ex.C5: : Copy of delivery report
Ex.C6: 19.5.2013 : Copy of emails (3 pages)
Ex.C7: 15.05.2013 : Copy of emails (5 pages)
Ex.C8: : Copy of service report
Ex.C9: : Copy DTI Delivery Report
Ex.C10: 2.07.2013 : Copy of emails between complainant and Opposite party No.3
Ex.C11: 20.6.2013 : Copy of Apple care Protection Plan certificate Issued by opposite party No.3 along with two Annexure
Ex.C12: 20.6.2013 : Copy of Tax Invoice/Delivery challan issued byOpposite party No.2 along with one annexure
Ex.C13: 20.6.2013 : Copy of email between complainant and Opposite party No.2
Ex.C14: 04.7.2013 : Copy of email between complainant and Opposite party No.2 ( 4 pages)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Deepak Jain (RW1) Authorized Signatory
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 9.12.2016 PRESIDENT
